ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 10.11.2020 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.73 of 2007 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Kanchipuram District at Chengalpet.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a 2nd defendant in the suit in O.S.No.73 of 2007 and the said suit was filed by the respondents 1 to 8 for partition and other reliefs. The Patta is standing in the name of the 9th respondent/1st defendant and the same was transferred in the name of the petitioner herein. The plaintiffs while initiating the suit proceedings have not paid the appropriate Court fees and they have no right to pay Court fee as per Section 37(2) of the TNCF Act 14, 1955. The petitioner/2nd defendant has filed an application under Section 12(3) of the TNCF Act 14 of 1955 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 before the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Kanchipuram District, Chengalpet, stating that the valuation adopted by the plaintiffs and the Court fee paid by them are wrong and the said issue has to be decided as a preliminary issue.

3. Denying the averments in the said application, a counter statement was filed by the 6th respondent which was adopted by the other respondents stating that originally, the suit was filed in the month of January 2007 and it was posted in the list on July 2011. The P.W.1 was examined in chief and then the matter was posted for his cross examination. At that point of time, the 3rd plaintiff had died and the respondents 1 to 8 had taken steps to implead the legal heirs. The 9th respondent/1st defendant had filed an application in I.A.No.662 of 2015 to take the Court fees as preliminary issue and the same was dismissed on merits. The 9th respondent had voluntarily created a fraudulent settlement deed dated 04.08.2011 in favour of the petitioner in respect of the suit property. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to proceed the case as he is an absolute owner of the suit property. It is further stated that the issue regarding the payment of Court fees can be raised before the commencement of trial. The I.A.No.662 of 2015 filed by the 9th respondent seeking to take the Court fee as preliminary issue was already dismissed on merits. Hence, the petitioner being legal heir of the 9th respondent cannot seek for the same remedy.

4. The Court below after hearing the parties dismissed the said I.A. on the ground that the petitioner being son of the 1st defendant is not entitled to seek the relief to try the Court fee issue as preliminary issue since the evidence of P.W.1 was already recorded and the petitioner having been impleaded in the suit due to the settlement deed executed by the 1st defendant. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this petition before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application to try the issue of valuation of suit and payment of Court fee as a preliminary issue when the petitioner/2nd defendant was impleaded as a party to the suit pursuant to the order passed in I.A.No.185 of 2018 dated 06.09.2018. The respondents 1 to 8 filed the suit for partition by making a false plea alleging that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property and paying a fixed Court fee as per Section 37(2) of the TNCF Act 14 of 1955. The 9th respondent/1st defendant was issued Patta in respect of the suit property even before filing of the suit and he was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Subsequently, he settled the suit property in favour of his son who is the petitioner herein vide Registered Settlement Deed dated 04.08.2011 under Doc.No.4702 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Padappai and mutation was effected in favour of him and Patta was also issued in his favour.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Section 12 of TNCF Act is not applicable to the case of the petitioner as he has been imp